Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secdir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E1241AE285; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:48:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRJxBZmQfaRm; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:48:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65251AD8F3; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:48:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1215; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386852490; x=1388062090; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=XeUs10DHj4rRzfxzuh/FFEdEYbjsPQP8MTMgAD2YkMA=; b=lcEASxDIN1ZNOXEqX7X1jAMAPr87GVHeOuL6ncPdyqOlzxYsg8o7cJwi HGO/OwzuzmoFlUji+rrHOjs63gHb+uadZeLHi3F4Hr8OoFQbvmAdQeB9z ob8vVTaZMF6yTA3libwWazlDdErjUzUsfMLTuUw/cHx1jgIiPxNdBMhuG k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhMFAFSvqVKQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgwqEELVYgR0WdIImAQEEIxVAEQsaAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYBCQMIAQEQh3CyOJAeF4EpjXKCbIFIBJgVhkWLT4MqOw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,878,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="2084560"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Dec 2013 12:48:09 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBCCm5v2030997; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:48:05 GMT
Message-ID: <52A9B085.3050301@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:48:05 +0100
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Scott G. Kelly" <scott@hyperthought.com>, "secdir@ietf.org" <secdir@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis.all@tools.ietf.org, "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
References: <1386851231.882518471@apps.rackspace.com>
In-Reply-To: <1386851231.882518471@apps.rackspace.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-07
X-BeenThere: secdir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <secdir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/>
List-Post: <mailto:secdir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdir>, <mailto:secdir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 12:48:18 -0000

Hi Scott,

Please note, from section 1.

    Please note that IF-CAP-STACK-MIB module was not transfered to IEEE
    and remains as defined in RFC 5066.  This memo provides an updated
    security considerations section for that module, since the original
    RFC did not list any security consideration for IF-CAP-STACK-MIB.

Regards, Benoit
> I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
>
> >From the abstract:
>
>     This document updates RFC 5066.  It amends that specification by
>     informing the internet community about the transition of the EFM-CU-
>     MIB module from the concluded IETF Ethernet Interfaces and Hub MIB
>     Working Group to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
>     Engineers (IEEE) 802.3 working group.
>
> The security considerations section appears to be identical to RFC5066. Given the stated purpose of the document, this seems appropriate.
>
> --Scott
>
>
>